MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W100158685 · doi:10.17615/bpvh-6n64

Challenging the South's Black-White Binary: Haliwa-Saponi Indians and Political Autonomy

2019· article· en· W100158685 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marvin McCray Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueCarolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAnthropological Studies and Insights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsWhite (mutation)AutonomyPolitical scienceGender studiesSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis explores how the Haliwa-Saponi Indians Halifax and Warren County, North Carolina, challenged the Jim Crow black-white racial classification system between the 1940s and 1960s. To seek political autonomy the Indians worked with and against the dominant strategies of the civil rights movement. The Indians strategically developed Indian-only political and social institutions such as the Haliwa Indian Club, Haliwa Indian School, and Mount Bethel Indian Baptist Church by collaborating with Indians and whites alike. Internal political disagreement led to this diversity of political strategies after 1954, when school desegregation became an issue throughout the nation. One faction of Meadows Indians embraced a racial identity as colored and worked within the existing black-white political and institutional system, while another group eschewed the colored designation and, when necessary, asserted a separate political identity as Indians; as such, they empowered themselves to take advantage of the segregated status quo.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.016
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCarolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)Same topicAnthropological Studies and InsightsFrench-language works237,207